Doc.
|
Date Docketed
|
Description
|
Filed by
|
Notes
|
|
04/11/2017
|
PETITION-ALL WRITS
|
PT Aramis Donell Ayala 623288 BY: PT Marcos E. Hasbun 145270
|
|
|
04/11/2017
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENT LETTER-NEW CASE
|
Supreme Court Of Florida BY: Supreme Court Of Florida
|
|
|
04/11/2017
|
ORDER-COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE (FOREIGN COUNSEL)
|
|
Any attorney involved in the above case who is not a member of The Florida Bar should immediately file a proper motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.510, if they wish to have this Court consider them as counsel of record. Failure to file a proper motion could result in the imposition of sanctions, including striking the pleading listing the foreign attorney as counsel of record.
|
|
04/12/2017
|
No Fee Required
|
|
|
|
04/13/2017
|
MOTION-COUNS PRO HAC VICE (FOREIGN COUNSEL)
|
PT Roy L. Austin, Jr. BY: PT Roy L. Austin, Jr.
|
|
|
04/13/2017
|
PAY PRO HAC VICE FEE-100
|
PT Aramis Donell Ayala 623288 BY: PT Mamie V. Wise 65570
|
|
|
04/13/2017
|
MOTION-COUNS PRO HAC VICE (FOREIGN COUNSEL)
|
PT Amy E. Richardson BY: PT Amy E. Richardson
|
|
|
04/13/2017
|
PAY PRO HAC VICE FEE-100
|
PT Aramis Donell Ayala 623288 BY: PT Mamie V. Wise 65570
|
|
|
04/17/2017
|
ORDER-COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE GR (FOREIGN COUNSEL)
|
|
The motion to appear pro hac vice filed in the above cause by Roy L. Austin, Jr., on behalf of petitioner, is hereby granted and counsel's payment of the $100.00 fee required by section 25.241(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), was received by this Court on April 13, 2017.
|
|
04/17/2017
|
ORDER-COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE GR (FOREIGN COUNSEL)
|
|
The motion to appear pro hac vice filed in the above cause by Amy E. Richardson, on behalf of petitioner, is hereby granted and counsel's payment of the $100.00 fee required by section 25.241(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), was received by this Court on April 13, 2017.
|
|
04/25/2017
|
DISP-DENIED
|
|
The "Emergency Non-Routine Petition to Invoke the Court's All Writs
Jurisdiction to Recognize Ayala as Prosecuting Officer Pending Review of the
Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto" ("Petition") is hereby denied. The Petition
asks this Court to answer the same question of law, on a temporary basis, that the
Court is asked to address in the separately filed Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto. That question is more properly addressed after both parties have been heard in the
Quo Warranto action and will not be answered on a "temporary" basis. To the
extent that the Petition seeks a stay of criminal prosecutions in the Ninth Circuit,
the Petition does not demonstrate a stay to be appropriate at this time as to any
case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.120.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND,
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
|